In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

The only reason 60/40 was ever manufactured in the first place is
that tin is more expensive than lead, so 63/37 solder costs more.

Cite, please? (and I don't mean a link to commodity prices)

I can only cite "common sense". 63/37 has always been
more-expensive than 60/40.

Then you can't substantiate your contention that 60/40 was THE
worldwide standard for tens of years just because it was a few pennies
cheaper per pound? That is the statement of yours with which I take issue.

I have no objection to your objection.

However, 60/40 was never, ever, "a few pennies per pound" cheaper than
63/37. For the last 30 years, the price of eutectic solder has been
sufficiently higher to make one think twice before buying it. The last time
I purchased solder, I decided that a one-pound roll of Kester 44 would last
the rest of my life, and I splurged. (At this point in my life, my
prediction is coming true. I rarely solder any more. If I drop dead, someone
digging through the junk will find a pleasant surprise. Assuming they know
what 63/37 is.)

I just checked Parts Express, and a 1# roll of Kester 44 60/40 is $22.23.
63/37 is $26.85. That's a $4.62 difference, almost 21% more -- hardly
"pennies per pound". When I bought the same product some years back, my
memory is that the price was around $7.50 for the 60/40, $9 for the 63/37.
Even that wasn't "pennies per pound".


Businesses almost always try to cut every corner they can. If you think your
solderers -- or soldering machines -- are doing a good job, you might prefer
to buy the less-expensive 60/40.


William, Parts Express sells to hobbyists. Their prices are meaningless
as a reference. I buy solder, as I have for 25 years, from industrial
suppliers. Since you didn't state either the diameter or the core, (and
diameter can make a huge difference in price) I looked up your
comparison rolls on Parts Express. I see you referred to Kester 44 with
a 66 core and at .031 diameter.

To compare apples to apples, I called my supplier yesterday for current
pricing: 63/37, $13.80/lb. 60/40, $13.30/lb. I also asked how many
people were buying 60/40, and she confirmed that well over 90% of
customers use 63/37.

1. You're paying nosebleed prices whichever formula you buy.
2. The cost difference is indeed pennies when purchased from real supply
houses
3. Regardless of the cost difference, 63/37 *is* the standard now, as it
has been for 20 years.
4. Based on #3 above, your assertion that companies will cut corners
anyway they can is false.
5. Therefore, my contention that the widespread switch was made due to
improved performance of 63/37 seems to be the only logical conclusion.

Now, you said that 63/37 eutectic nature was known 50 years ago. That
may or may not be true, but what is true is that the widespread
industrial changeover happened much more recently, about 20 years ago.